HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part III (First 2 weeks of season cancelled)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2012, 05:50 PM
  #226
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
The current environment of labor deals in the other 3 major North American sports is the players get 49-50% of revenues.
This is meaningless because revenue is calculated differently between the sports. It's not a one to one comparison.

I agree the players need to move some more on this but it's a poor argument to say "but look at what other leagues do" and pretend it's something that's the same across the board.

Quote:
Also, I've pointed this out before, but every single contract signed in the NHL is signed subject to the terms of the CBA. This idea that the owners are somehow obligated to negotiate a deal that preserves every dollar of the individual players' contracts is quite simply wrong. By definition, therefore, player contracts absolutely CAN decrease in line with a negotiated revenue split. Indeed, the escrow provision of the previous CBA would have resulted in just such a decrease from each player's contractually agreed amount - while a CBA was in effect, mind you - had the league not earned sufficient revenues in any year from 2005-2012.
On the other hand, the league is increasing revenues every year at this point and there's no real reason why it won't continue to do so. How would you like to take a paycut while you're company is bringing in record revenues?

That said, it's not surprising the league wants to do it and not surprising the players are against it. Also, the contracts are subject to the terms of the old CBA, and as of right now, there is no CBA, so that's kind of a weird argument to make. If the players agree to accept a new CBA, then their contracts would be subject to that, but that is all kind of the point...

Levitate is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 05:56 PM
  #227
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Starting to see more and more pro-player stuff on the board - and I have to say it sounds an awful lot like it comes from posters who are looking through anti-management glasses due to their emotional connections to the players and/or their own positions as union members.

These are two businesses parties negotiating a deal and should be viewed as such. No one party is entitled to anything. And everything that's said - PARTICULARLY to the press - is a negotiating tactic.

Was the owners' first proposal ridiculous? Yes.

Is Gary Bettman an unlikeable, bullying ass? Yes.

However, the current situation is this: the owners made a first proposal - it was awful. They then made a second proposal. This proposal should have been their first proposal as it was a much more realistic starting position than the one they provided, but regardless, they did finally make it. Then the players made a proposal that moved a little bit towards the owners. The owners then made a third proposal where they made a significant move towards the middle. It is the players' turn. And they need to make a meaningful move to the middle.

The old deal has no bearing on the current one. Get that out of your heads. Just because the players had 57% in the last deal doesn't mean they have a right to that split in perpetuity. It was a negotiated deal made in the context of the pro sports business environment at that time. This one is going to be made in the pro sports environment now. The current environment of labor deals in the other 3 major North American sports is the players get 49-50% of revenues.

The owners' current position is at 49, dropping to 47. The players are still at 57 with a provision that it drop to 54 (provided, of course, that the league grows revenues sufficiently - which is VERY different than a straight drop to 54). Like I said, the players will need to make a significant move off that amount to get a deal done. The owners aren't moving much further towards the players - at least not on this issue.

Also, I've pointed this out before, but every single contract signed in the NHL is signed subject to the terms of the CBA. This idea that the owners are somehow obligated to negotiate a deal that preserves every dollar of the individual players' contracts is quite simply wrong. By definition, therefore, player contracts absolutely CAN decrease in line with a negotiated revenue split. Indeed, the escrow provision of the previous CBA would have resulted in just such a decrease from each player's contractually agreed amount - while a CBA was in effect, mind you - had the league not earned sufficient revenues in any year from 2005-2012.

Like I said, these are two business parties that need to negotiate a deal. Everything's on the table. It's not about one side in black hats trying to steal things from the side in white hats to solve problems they're too stupid to solve for themselves. The current market of pro sports labor deals has far more bearing on where the deal will come out than the previous CBA does. The league made the last offer and it was a significant move on the core economic issue. It's the players' turn.
Nothing more I can really add, very well said.

I am no means "pro owner" but I am disappointed on how the players have handled negotiations thus far for the reasons you mentioned. At least as far as what has been leaked to the public.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 06:07 PM
  #228
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
On the other hand, the league is increasing revenues every year at this point and there's no real reason why it won't continue to do so. How would you like to take a paycut while you're company is bringing in record revenues?
This also to me is very flawed logic. The league may be bringing in record revenues, but revenues vary wildly from team to team.

There really is no other business you can make a fair comparison to, but the closest would be a huge manufacturing company with many diverse business lines. If aerospace is booming but automotive is struggling, the automotive workers realistically should take a paycut or face layoffs.

Obviously things don't work like that in the NHL, but clearly some adjustments need to be made to "raise all boats" from a profitability standpoint. I personally believe they need to cut bait in some locations and increase revenue sharing; but neither side will ever support relocation/contraction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Also, the contracts are subject to the terms of the old CBA, and as of right now, there is no CBA, so that's kind of a weird argument to make. If the players agree to accept a new CBA, then their contracts would be subject to that, but that is all kind of the point...
The contracts were subject to the old CBA through Sept 15th. The players were entitled to the dollars they earned based on 57% of revenues on the $70M cap structure through that date. On Sept 16th, everything is pending renegotiation.

Do I think it is unethical to lure UFAs and then try to negotiate a lower player percent of revenue? I absolutely do. But it is completely within the league's rights. And the players aren't owed 57% of HRR moving forward - which their current deals and salary structure are based off of.

HatTrick Swayze is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 06:19 PM
  #229
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
This is meaningless because revenue is calculated differently between the sports. It's not a one to one comparison.

I agree the players need to move some more on this but it's a poor argument to say "but look at what other leagues do" and pretend it's something that's the same across the board.



On the other hand, the league is increasing revenues every year at this point and there's no real reason why it won't continue to do so. How would you like to take a paycut while you're company is bringing in record revenues?

That said, it's not surprising the league wants to do it and not surprising the players are against it. Also, the contracts are subject to the terms of the old CBA, and as of right now, there is no CBA, so that's kind of a weird argument to make. If the players agree to accept a new CBA, then their contracts would be subject to that, but that is all kind of the point...
Except that the various league revenues ARE pretty much the same. Is anybody excluding ticket revenues? Is anybody excluding sale of TV rights? No. Hence the fact that the other 3 have wound up pretty close on this issue. (Yes, the internal splits among the teams are different, but that's a separate issue - and why if there was a vociferous owners contingent on the board I'd tell them to deal with the fact that revenue sharing IS going to go up significantly.)

As to the contracts, I'm not really sure what to say - to me it's pretty clear that contracts negotiated in a CBA environment are contingent on changes to that CBA, just like the worth of my salary is contingent on the value of the dollar, tax rates, etc.

By the way, I'm not "on the side" of the players or the owners. I'm on the side of getting a deal done. Boiling away the BS and looking at the facts of the matter, I'm pointing out why the players need to get off their grandstand and make a meaningful move back to the middle on the subject of the rev split. If they had done so and we were now hung up on the issue of owners not willing to up the rev sharing pool and for some reason the board was coming out pro owner on that issue, I'd be writing similar posts directed at the impracticality of that position.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 06:55 PM
  #230
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I personally believe they need to cut bait in some locations and increase revenue sharing; but neither side will ever support relocation/contraction.
Yeah this is realistically the point I"d get around to making but it's such a huge discussion that it's not really worth getting into. Suffice to say that my opinion is that we'll have these same discussions every CBA until something is done to actually help the lower income teams instead of lowering players salaries, watching them climb during the CBA one way or another, and then do it again whenever that CBA is up.

Quote:
The contracts were subject to the old CBA through Sept 15th. The players were entitled to the dollars they earned based on 57% of revenues on the $70M cap structure through that date. On Sept 16th, everything is pending renegotiation.
Yeah that's kind of my point of the negotiations, to find a CBA that the players are willing to subject their contracts to (from the players perspective). A blanket statement about how their contracts are subjet to the terms of the CBA is kind of pointless when the CBA is in flux.

Levitate is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 07:03 PM
  #231
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 11,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Yeah this is realistically the point I"d get around to making but it's such a huge discussion that it's not really worth getting into. Suffice to say that my opinion is that we'll have these same discussions every CBA until something is done to actually help the lower income teams instead of lowering players salaries, watching them climb during the CBA one way or another, and then do it again whenever that CBA is up.



Yeah that's kind of my point of the negotiations, to find a CBA that the players are willing to subject their contracts to (from the players perspective). A blanket statement about how their contracts are subjet to the terms of the CBA is kind of pointless when the CBA is in flux.
Completely agreed with all these points. I do believe that we will see more and more rev sharing with each subsequent CBA, but we won't get to an NFL-style model in the space of one or even two CBA negotiations.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 07:11 PM
  #232
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
No one is accusing the league of doing anything illegal, especially regarding contracts and the cba. But there is an agreement between players and owners. I'm not going to fault anyone for protecting a contract signed in good faith, especially ones that were 1 month, 1 week, or 1 minute old when the lockout started. If owners wanted salaries rolled back 20%, shouldn't Leopold have handed out an $75m deal to Parise instead of a $93m one? Especially as the guy sitting next to Bettman during the first round of negotiations.

Again, the players wanting their old deals secured isn't a legal, cba or constitutional issue. It's a principle.

And it's totally unfair to attack them for hanging onto 57%. They've come off that. Any sound byte from a player says they'll concede more... just not percentages on old deals.

There's a lot of adults here that aren't tied to blind allegiances. They can base there opinions on things other than biases. For me, it's the fact that implementing this system cost a year of hockey. It's on the owners to fix it. Period. If the system is broken, offer up something other than the same exact model with different numbers. Let's do some revenue sharing to give poor teams relief. Let's move poor teams to good markets. If revenues are that skewed, won't we have the same problem (even with a 50/50 or 45/55 split) in a few years when revenues hit $4.5b. What will the cap floor be then? $55m? If they aren't generating money now, they're only buying a few short years with this proposal.

That last paragraph was a waste of space. Because this new proposal is nothing more than a money grab.

Granted, the NHL came back with a good deal. The players need to offer something as substantial and sooner than later. I could get into Bettman's underhanded move with the 24% last time to excuse the players' reluctance to make official proposals... but they should make a new offer.

Maybe it's old, this no compromising, lockout strategy BS. Bettman is enemy #1, and not because he's a nerd handing off the cup every spring but because it's his mess. He spearheaded expansion... diluting the talent in the league. That's your salary inflation problem. He drove teams south and west... creating horrible markets. That's your poor revenues. Bettman lower UFA age to flood the free agent market. Totally backfired. That's the cap circumvention issue.

He is the poster child of mismanagement. Edmonton created the Winter Classic. NBC bought Comcast and the Flyers. It's their attempt at a national sports network. That's dumb luck. His answer is miss games, lose money, take steps backward. The league has success despite him.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 07:49 PM
  #233
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,101
vCash: 500
Meh.

Quote:
Josh Yohe ‏@JoshYohe_Trib
Just spoke with Pens player rep Craig Adams. Little progress has been made at meetings, according to Adams. He called it "disappointing."

Jabroni is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 08:41 PM
  #234
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
No one is accusing the league of doing anything illegal, especially regarding contracts and the cba. But there is an agreement between players and owners. I'm not going to fault anyone for protecting a contract signed in good faith, especially ones that were 1 month, 1 week, or 1 minute old when the lockout started. If owners wanted salaries rolled back 20%, shouldn't Leopold have handed out an $75m deal to Parise instead of a $93m one? Especially as the guy sitting next to Bettman during the first round of negotiations.

Again, the players wanting their old deals secured isn't a legal, cba or constitutional issue. It's a principle.

And it's totally unfair to attack them for hanging onto 57%. They've come off that. Any sound byte from a player says they'll concede more... just not percentages on old deals.

There's a lot of adults here that aren't tied to blind allegiances. They can base there opinions on things other than biases. For me, it's the fact that implementing this system cost a year of hockey. It's on the owners to fix it. Period. If the system is broken, offer up something other than the same exact model with different numbers. Let's do some revenue sharing to give poor teams relief. Let's move poor teams to good markets. If revenues are that skewed, won't we have the same problem (even with a 50/50 or 45/55 split) in a few years when revenues hit $4.5b. What will the cap floor be then? $55m? If they aren't generating money now, they're only buying a few short years with this proposal.

That last paragraph was a waste of space. Because this new proposal is nothing more than a money grab.

Granted, the NHL came back with a good deal. The players need to offer something as substantial and sooner than later. I could get into Bettman's underhanded move with the 24% last time to excuse the players' reluctance to make official proposals... but they should make a new offer.

Maybe it's old, this no compromising, lockout strategy BS. Bettman is enemy #1, and not because he's a nerd handing off the cup every spring but because it's his mess. He spearheaded expansion... diluting the talent in the league. That's your salary inflation problem. He drove teams south and west... creating horrible markets. That's your poor revenues. Bettman lower UFA age to flood the free agent market. Totally backfired. That's the cap circumvention issue.

He is the poster child of mismanagement. Edmonton created the Winter Classic. NBC bought Comcast and the Flyers. It's their attempt at a national sports network. That's dumb luck. His answer is miss games, lose money, take steps backward. The league has success despite him.
And as fans, let's not forget the League, through their mouthpiece, promised that games would become more affordable after the lockout. Even now, with the economy the way it is, the NHL is not "sharing" some of the increased revenue with the fans that shelled out the money: prices on everything have increased. Plus, no one on the League has even mentioned trying to keep costs down so fans could benefit. Last time it was window dressing, this time? Not even that.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 08:50 PM
  #235
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,101
vCash: 500
What's sickening?

Quote:
Chris Botta ‏@ChrisBottaNHL
Player text: unless there's surprise turn soon, NHLPA views weekend meetings as a step back. Called NHL's actions "sickening."

Jabroni is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 09:24 PM
  #236
rangerfan_79
Registered User
 
rangerfan_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to rangerfan_79
I haven't really followed sports outside of hockey for at least 25 years outside of the lockouts that took place. I have started to follow some football and baseball again because this lockout BS is really sickening. Since the last lockout i decided not to buy and NHL merchandise or tickets from anyone other then a re-seller. I hate the thought of my hard earned money going to the greed machine we are witnessing now. If we lose a season then I probably won't be back other then an occasional game on the TV. Once upon a time I did have a passion for the sport but since the last lockout that has faded.

Owners got their way in the last lockout and now they want to not honor current contracts in place? it's just sickening.

rangerfan_79 is offline  
Old
09-29-2012, 10:40 PM
  #237
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,101
vCash: 500
Honestly, I'm not sure how you guys lasted an entire season without hockey in 2004-2005.

I'm going nuts already.

Jabroni is online now  
Old
09-29-2012, 11:01 PM
  #238
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 12,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
Honestly, I'm not sure how you guys lasted an entire season without hockey in 2004-2005.

I'm going nuts already.
. Be prepared for another one

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 02:33 AM
  #239
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Yokohama
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
Can't speak for everyone else but I want the PA to cave to an extent because, the way I see it, that's how this is going to end. It's not about not losing games, its about putting aside what I think is "fair" and "right" and thinking about what realistically is going to need to happen for any NHL hockey to be played this year.


It is a hostage situation, and in such a situation the hostages don't get what they want.
i agree that it is a hostage situation. and that's why i think, if push came to shove in, say, six months, the players would take this to court before caving. the whole system is a bit too screwy. this is fehr's trump card and i doubt bettman wants that mess.
i do agree the players will give in more before that happens, and i think the deal will get done. but i also think that the owners - while theirs may be bigger - aren't the only ones with guns in this streetfight.
and i think there is a reasonable deal to be made, as well. so it shouldn't even get that far. but the threat of court should keep the owners from rubbing the players faces in the mess, at least...

egelband is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 04:04 AM
  #240
High And Wide*
Unregistered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
What's sickening?
Probably lowballing the hell out of them.

High And Wide* is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 05:32 AM
  #241
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Adams and the other player texting Botta are just playing the media guy. Adams is a ****ing moron. This guy went to Harvard? They haven't discussed the main issues so what is he "disappointed" about?

Quote:
Penguins player representative Craig Adams told the Tribune-Review on Saturday night that little progress has been made after two days of negotiations in New York between the NHL and NHLPA.

The sides will meet again Sunday.

Although Adams did say “some common ground” was reached on minor issues like drug testing and scheduling issues, the biggest issue — how the league and the NHLPA will divide future revenues — wasn’t even discussed Friday or Saturday.

“It’s disappointing,” Adams said. “Obviously we know it’s the elephant in the room. That is what needs to be worked out. It’s the biggest obstacle standing between us and a new deal. I didn’t necessarily have expectations, but yeah, I’d be happier if we had made some ground.”
Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/penguins/...#ixzz27wp69eXJ

These comments make no sense. The PA refuses to discuss the "elephant" in the room. Is Adams criticizing the PA? Fehr wants to hammer out the minutia of the CBA before tackling the big issues. Adams needs to have a talk with Fehr.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 05:53 AM
  #242
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Some interesting and heartfelt tweets from @krysbarch tonight. Players extremely frustrated with situation.
https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/252257691492286464

The players haven't missed a check yet and they're coming apart at the seams.

Krys Barch had a rant last night taking to twitter

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...4345--nhl.html

The players get paid on the 15th and 30th of every month during the season.

The NHL reads this stuff too.

Quote:
With at least part of this season in jeopardy, agents have tried to secure jobs for clients in Europe, which would bring in some commissions.

“The players want to play,” Gandler said. “The fact is, not everybody can get a job. It’s difficult explaining to players why one guy got a job and another guy doesn’t. Pretty much everybody can at least play in their hometown. We do what we can.”
http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2...medium=twitter

I had an argument with a hockey writer on twitter about some players getting jobs to play in Europe doesn't do much to create solidarity. Guys like Barch and Brandon Prust can't get a job in Europe while some players play in Europe and make some money. Those players pay a ridiculous amount of money to insure their NHL contracts. That writer said it doesn't seem to bother the players who can't play in Europe. I would be pissed. Some union. Brooks sees nothing wrong with players going to Europe and then he espouses the pro-union stuff. Go figure.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 05:57 AM
  #243
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
And that means the union is going to have to submit a long-term proposal under which the players’ share eventually decreases to the same 49-51 percent band the NBA players accepted last season if the NHL guarantees all existing contracts through their entirety at an escrow rate capped at no more than five percent and the systems issues are not overhauled.

That’s the basis of a settlement. That’s the foundation of what may not necessarily be a fair deal for the players, but the fairest one they can expect to get from the Sixth Avenue nihilists who cancel games as a matter of course the way banks cancel checks.

If good faith existed here, now would be the time for Don Fehr, who had a second-round of private talks with Bettman yesterday, and the NHLPA to make the proposal that could save the 82-game schedule. But it doesn’t. This is a fast-track lockout with, and you had better believe this, a drop-dead date already established by the Boardroom powers-that-be that could be as early as Thanksgiving.

Thus, the union faces the distinct possibility — if not likelihood — such an offer would be interpreted by Bettman and his hawks as a sign of weakness and evidence of a crack in the players’ resolve to lose another season and as evidence the deal will only become better for the owners once the athletes miss three or four paychecks.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...Kdpf0AWYIevSOM

Last paragraph is the main issue.

Brooks has no clue what Bettman and Fehr have discussed the last two days and what they will discuss again today.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 08:05 AM
  #244
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
brooks has it right: the players aren't asking for or getting a single give back. they are negotiating a salary cut and reduced take from the last salary cut and reduced take.

even insane krys barch figured it out. if the system is broke, get together and figure it out to save the southern markets.

i can imagine a cba created to reduce the split to "save the sunbelt", then they all move north and roll around in money.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 08:50 AM
  #245
CH2
Registered User
 
CH2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,363
vCash: 500
Joffrey Lupol's take:

http://www.askmen.com/sports/fanatic/nhl-lockout-2012.html


I think most of it is pretty "woe is me", but he does stress a good point that RangerBoy has before. Why is it the players' duty to help money-losing teams? Revenues have set records each year, yet the NHL still claims poverty by alluding to several teams in non-traditional markets that can't turn a profit. There are plenty of owners who are making record money that did well off the last CBA and they continue to give out of control contracts to players who, to be honest, don't deserve them. Use the leverage you have to control costs until players approach Group 3. The owners can point to other leagues' CBAs as examples of how great NHL players have it, but those leagues also have safe-guards to ensure teams are stable financially. What I fear is that owners will learn nothing from the current negotiations and will instead do what's best for the big-market teams rather than the league as a whole.

CH2 is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 08:51 AM
  #246
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
I had an argument with a hockey writer on twitter about some players getting jobs to play in Europe doesn't do much to create solidarity. Guys like Barch and Brandon Prust can't get a job in Europe while some players play in Europe and make some money. Those players pay a ridiculous amount of money to insure their NHL contracts. That writer said it doesn't seem to bother the players who can't play in Europe. I would be pissed. Some union. Brooks sees nothing wrong with players going to Europe and then he espouses the pro-union stuff. Go figure.
The big names in Europe is basically playing for free, it takes a ton just to insure them for their teams.

Players that aren't on big pay-checks will definitely be able to get some money, if the NHL season is cancelled. Nobody is willing to mortage the future for a player that could bolt within a week if there is some movement in NA.

I don't get why its anything wrong with NHLers going to Europe from the PA's point of view. It gotta be the opposite. I am Gary Bettman, I definitely rather negotiate with 600 hockey players sitting on their porch then a union where 50-75% of the members got jobs elsewhere...

Ola is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 08:56 AM
  #247
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH2 View Post
Joffrey Lupol's take:

http://www.askmen.com/sports/fanatic/nhl-lockout-2012.html


I think most of it is pretty "woe is me", but he does stress a good point that RangerBoy has before. Why is it the players' duty to help money-losing teams? Revenues have set records each year, yet the NHL still claims poverty by alluding to several teams in non-traditional markets that can't turn a profit. There are plenty of owners who are making record money that did well off the last CBA and they continue to give out of control contracts to players who, to be honest, don't deserve them. Use the leverage you have to control costs until players approach Group 3. The owners can point to other leagues' CBAs as examples of how great NHL players have it, but those leagues also have safe-guards to ensure teams are stable financially. What I fear is that owners will learn nothing from the current negotiations and will instead do what's best for the big-market teams rather than the league as a whole.
Is that actually Lupul?

If so, it was a great, honest article on his behalf.

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 09:27 AM
  #248
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,230
vCash: 500
The Krys Barch thing is nice.

However, no. Sorry.

Dude, cry to me when you work 40+ hour weeks and don't get paid, at all, and have two kids and need to find a way to make ends meet.

Cry to the soldiers who come back from Iraq and Afganistan and get screwed. I know several of them.

This guy can't seriously begin to compare real world issues with his own. His minimum wage is FAR more than anything most of us will ever sniff in years and years and years of working/slaving.

And Brandon Prust chiming in with "Amen brother"? ****ing really Brandon? What contract did you just sign with Montreal?

"Some of us will have to work for the next 50 years"...welcome to the real world. Oh boo hoo you got to play a child's game for a living to the last several years. When you had no business doing so in the first place because you SUCK at hockey Barch. If you got what you want and smaller leagues you would never have played NHL hockey to begin with. No Euro team wants you because you're a talentless goon.

And please, don't patronize the fans. WE are the REAL ones paying all your salaries. Who is looking out for us? Where the **** is our union?

"As i sit here drinking by my fireplace"...really. Instead of crying about what you don't have, go work. And take a gander at what its like to really not have. Go on downtown and help a homless family eat for the night.


Last edited by SupersonicMonkey*: 09-30-2012 at 09:35 AM.
SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 09:43 AM
  #249
Primetimey*
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,699
vCash: 160
Krys Barch's statements are such a joke. He made $850,000 last year with how many months off in the summer and he whines about it. If you dislike your job, the NHL, and the owners so much pack up, leave, and find another job.

That would be the day.

Primetimey* is offline  
Old
09-30-2012, 09:57 AM
  #250
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,977
vCash: 500
Both sides are full of it. After following the NFL and NBA lockouts,its like the NHL and NHLPA are following the same playbook. They won't get serious about making a deal until they have to.

RangerBoy is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.